Proposition 60 authorized seniors a one-time move of the property tax to another property. In the same county if the new home’s purchase price is equal to or less than the sold dwelling.

Proposition 90 allowed counties to accept Proposition 60 property tax basis from a home sold in a different county to be applied to those that accept low property tax transfers. 10 counties have opted into accepting these transfers.

What is being considered today:

If passed, Proposition 5 will make it so that those 55 and older will be able to move their Proposition 13 tax benefit to a home of any value, anywhere in California any number of times. Plus, Proposition 5 adds two addition categories of persons: those that lose their home to natural disasters and the permanently disabled homeowners of any age.

If you are thinking of moving call me at 949-616-2988 to discuss your particular circumstance.

Note: this article is not tax or legal advice.

For further details about Proposition 5 and how it may affect you read the information below.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

The California Association of Realtors sponsored the initiative and referred to it as the “People’s Initiative to Protect Proposition 13 Savings.” The California Attorney General describes Proposition 5 as “Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”

Starting January 1, 2019 three segments of the population would be enabled to benefit from the passage of Proposition 5, they include: 1) homeowners over 55 with their primary residence in California, 2) homeowners that have had their primary residence substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor and 3) any homeowners that are a severely and permanently disabled person.

To fully understand the significance of the 2018 Proposition 5 you will need to have a basic understanding of the Howard Jarvis’s lauded Proposition 13, passed in 1978, along with Proposition 60, passed in 1986, and Proposition 90, passed in 1988.

Proposition 13 made it state law that property tax base rates are 1% of the full cash value, usually the purchase price, (minus the $7,000 homeowners’ exemption) and that the property tax may only increase a maximum of 2% per year. Proposition 13 defined “full cash value” as the county assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under “full cash value” or the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership that occurred after the 1975 assessment.

Proposition 60 allows seniors a one-time opportunity to use the Proposition 13 benefit of having their lower property tax basis transferred to a newly purchased replacement dwelling. Seniors are defined as any person over the age of 55 years and includes a married couple one member of which is over the age of 55 years. The current law in place is that the replacement dwelling must be of equal or lesser value than the dwelling to be sold. Proposition 60 only applies to intra-county primary residence replacements and was enhanced with the passage of Proposition 90.

In 1988, Proposition 90 was passed and enhances the Proposition 60 benefits by allowing counties to opt into allowing Proposition 60 transfers of property tax basis from other counties. Only 10 counties in California have chosen to accept this inter-county property tax bases, they include: Alameda, El Dorado, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Ventura counties.

Proposition 5 would enhance Propositions 60 and 90 by allowing homeowners 55 years of age or older to transfer their Proposition 13 tax basis to a home of any price (proportionally), located anywhere in the state, any number of times. Let me provide a hypothetical example to explain by what I meant by proportionally. Say you purchased your home 21 years ago for $200,000, with a property tax basis of $2,000 and with compounding your property tax basis is now $3,000 and your home is now worth $900,000 and you want to purchase a home for $1,200,000. You sell the less expensive home and purchase the home that costs $300,000 more, your property tax basis from the original home would move with you for the first $900,000 in value and your property tax basic 1% levy would only increase by the difference in the full cash value. Your new property tax would be the $3,000 moved basis plus an additional $3,000 for the property tax on the increased value. Therefore, your property tax base would be $6,000 instead of $12,000 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1, Buy Up Example

If you want to buy a less expensive home, your property taxes will be reduced proportionally equal to the original home. Any replacement property of equal or lesser value purchased or newly constructed by a person eligible to transfer the base year value of his or her original property, the base year value of the replacement property will be calculated by dividing the base year value of the original property by the full cash value of the original property, and multiplying the result by the full cash value of the replacement property. If in the same scenario as above, you sold your $900,000 property and purchased a $450,000 home the new property tax would be half of the new sale price or $1,500 per year (see Figure 2). The buy down is a little harder to follow so let me provide a second example. If your existing home sells for $600,000 and your property tax is $2,000 and you purchase a home for $400,000 your new property tax basis would be 1% of one-third of $400,000 or about $1,333.33 per year (see Figure 3).

Figure 2, Buy Down Example 1

Figure 3, Buy Down Example 2

The benefits to those that have suffered from having their primary residence substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the governor, applies to replacement properties that are comparable to the home that was damaged or destroyed without regard to the age of the owner(s). This is explicitly for a replacement property that is located intra-county. Proposition 5 has language indicating that the state Legislature may authorize each county board of supervisors to adopt, after consultation with affected local agencies within the county, an ordinance allowing the transfer of the base year value of property that is located within another county in the State.

The third category of persons that may benefit from the passage of Proposition 5 include any severely and permanently disabled person, who resides in a property that is eligible for the homeowners’ exemption. The property tax base year transfer is also applied to replacement dwellings that are purchased or newly constructed on or after June 6, 1990. The benefit would be in place regardless of the number of prior transfers, the value of the replacement home or whether the replacement dwelling is located within the same county. There are other details, but this gives you a general overview of the three classes of persons that may choose to benefit from the passage of Proposition 5.

The California Association of Realtors believes that if Proposition 5 is approved by California’s voters it would make moving between counties once again aﬀordable for California’s retirees, help victims of officially recognized natural disasters and provide relief to the severely disabled. These property tax benefits would result in the freeing up of home inventory and encouraging home ownership. If you are considering moving contact me to discuss your unique real estate needs, (949) 616-2988.

For Californians who are struggling to pay property tax bills that are rising ever higher due to the increasing number of local bonds and parcel taxes, help may be available.

Property taxes are held in check by Proposition 13, passed by voters in 1978. It limited the annual increase in the assessed value of a property and cut the tax rate to 1 percent statewide. Prop. 13 has helped millions of Californians keep their homes by keeping property taxes predictable and affordable.

But keeping property taxes in check doesn’t always keep property tax bills in check. That’s because extra charges for voter-approved debt or special taxes can be added to property tax bills, and those can really add up. This can become a terrible burden for homeowners who live on fixed incomes, and may even force some to sell their homes because they can’t afford to pay the taxes.

Fortunately, the state of California has restarted the Property Tax Postponement program, allowing homeowners who are at least 62 years old, are blind or have a disability to defer the current-year property taxes on their principal residence if they meet certain criteria.

Before the Legislature ended the Property Tax Postponement program in 2009 amid budget cuts, nearly 6,000 homeowners throughout the state were able to benefit from it. Many had been in the program for 20 years or more and the majority were over 70 years old. In the last year of the program before it was cut, 208 people who claimed its assistance were over 90 years old.

In 2014, legislation was passed to restore the program, and it started up again in the fall of 2016.

To qualify, applicants must have 40 percent equity in their home and an annual household income of $35,500 or less. Other requirements also apply. For example, homeowners who have taken out a reverse mortgage are not eligible.

Homeowners who are accepted into the program may defer their current-year property taxes. It’s actually a loan from the state, with an interest rate of 7 percent per year. The state places a lien on the property until the loan is repaid, but repayment is not due until the homeowner moves or sells the property, transfers the title, refinances, defaults on a senior lien, obtains a reverse mortgage or passes away. …

California’s major revenue sources have shifted over time. Until 1995, the biggest was property taxes. Today, it’s personal income taxes.

And California ranks fairly high in overall taxation: 10th highest both per capita and as a percentage of personal income, based on the latest available data from the U.S. Census.

In 2015, state and local governments collected $228.7 billion in taxes, including property, sales, personal and corporate income levies and a few others, according to the census. That’s in a state with more than 39 million residents and personal income worth nearly $2 trillion that year.

California’s taxes have risen in ranking partly because of voter-approved increases. In November 2012, the state passed a temporary hike in sales taxes of 0.25 percent and raised personal income taxes on the rich. Four years later, voters extended the income tax increase for 12 more years.

Gov. Brown and lawmakers also approved a 12-cent gas-tax hike in 2017 to help raise $5 billion a year for aging infrastructure. The measure includes increasing the annual vehicle fee between $25 and $175, depending on the vehicle’s value. …

A reporter for the Bay Area News Group stopped by the government office in Santa Clara County and concluded that while people standing in line to pay their property taxes were upset with the heavy burden, they had scant knowledge of California’s iconic Proposition 13. What most were probably unaware of is that their taxes would be at least twice as high without Prop. 13.

Many people who live in California today were not here in 1978 when Proposition 13 was passed overwhelmingly by voters. Today’s younger homeowners have little idea how frightened and angry citizens were in the mid-1970s when their property taxes doubled or even tripled from the previous year. Homeowners were literally being taxed out of their homes.

But despite having no personal memory of the pre-Prop. 13 era, most Californians have at least heard of Proposition 13 and, when prodded, recall it somehow helps to keep escalating property taxes in check.

In June, Proposition 13 will hit its 40th birthday. While long-time homeowners will surely celebrate, those in government with an insatiable appetite for taxpayer dollars are hoping that voters will be ready to weaken it. But previous attacks on Proposition 13 have come up short. At most, Prop. 13 was weakened by court decisions involving fees and charges as well as attacks on the two-thirds vote requirements. But those attacks were quickly countered by subsequent ballot initiatives such as Proposition 218 in 1996, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which reinforced Prop. 13’s original intent.

Knowing that a direct attack on Proposition 13’s protections for homeowners is a fool’s errand, the tax-and-spend interests have focused on raising property taxes on business property. This so-called “split roll” effort has gone on for about 30 years and has never really gained any serious traction. According to these interests, 2018 was going to be the year where they would finally be able to take a big chunk out of Prop. 13 by hitting commercial real estate with several billion dollars in higher taxes.

The optimism displayed by Proposition 13’s detractors has been based in large part on the expected “blue wave” of voters coming out in support of progressive candidates. Liberal Democrats believe, rightly or wrongly, that voter disgust with the Trump administration might at least allow them to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. The thinking, at least until recently, has been that November of 2018 would be the right moment to fracture the pro-Proposition 13 alliance because of an energized progressive base, low voter turnout and fading memories of 1978.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the ballot box. After beginning a serious effort to collect signatures for their “split roll” initiative, the proponents have taken their foot off the gas and announced that, instead, they will attempt to qualify the measure for the 2020 ballot. The ostensible reason for the delay is that it would give them more time to expand their coalition (of course, the same can be said for Prop. 13 defenders) and that the voter turnout model in 2020 would be better for them – a dubious claim indeed.

Split-roll proponents might be having second thoughts about what they thought was a weakening of support for Prop. 13 or the political strength of their own coalition. Perhaps they’ve seen polling – both private and public – revealing Proposition 13’s continued popularity. Whatever the reason, this November’s election will not present a direct threat to Proposition 13. …

Last July, we wrote a column regarding the foolishness of Senate Bill 2, a new $75 tax on real estate recordings, ostensibly for the purpose of funding housing programs. We pointed out that imposing a tax on real estate transactions to pay for programs to make housing more affordable is like treating someone with a low blood count with leeches.

While the fundamental irrationality of SB2 is water under the bridge, a host of implementation problems have now arisen that need corrective action, and quickly.

For example, SB2’s language makes it difficult for California’s 58 County Recorders to determine if they should charge the additional $75 for tax liens and lien releases presented by government agencies.

These tax liens can originate from small local business activities like selling Avon, from failure to pay your annual income taxes, from a missed tax payment on your jet ski, for child-support collection and more. You don’t even need to own a house to have one of these liens recorded against you, and worse yet, you may not even know that the lien exists until it shows up on your credit report.

State agencies and the IRS have refused to pay the $75, arguing that these documents are exempt from the new tax. The attorney general agrees (see AG 18-101), but California’s Office of Legislative Counsel issued an opinion that contradicts the attorney general — making it even more confusing for taxpayers and county recorders.

At this point, most recorders interpret the statute as mandatory, because the legislative counsel has told them this was the original intent of the bill. Therefore, they are mailing back lien releases as unrecorded to state agencies and to the IRS for lack of the $75. For property owners, this is a real problem because their debt has been paid but their credit is not cleared because the lien hasn’t been released.

Some taxpayers are so eager to clear their credit that they are intercepting the lien releases at their county recorder’s office and offering to pay the $75, legal or not. The Department of Child Support Services intends to record all lien releases itself instead of giving them to the redeemed payer to record more quickly on their own, but it is still being held up. Some child-support payers might be offering to take the release to the recorder themselves and paying the $75 to have their credit cleared. As the situation continues, however, others might be discouraged from paying up their child support arrears or tax debts in the first place. The extra hurdle is not helping the government, the taxpayer, or the children.

It is also true that the state of California cannot tax the federal government. Although this has been settled law for hundreds of years, many county recorders are attempting to collect the tax from the IRS. And although this is legal doctrine, it makes common sense as well. Would there be any sense or justice if the states had the power to tax the federal government out of existence?

Because the language of SB2 is so confusing, and it relies on many assumptions that the county recorder has no ability to independently verify, payment of the tax on most documents relies on self-certification. Most people do not have law degrees, so many people are paying the tax when they are not legally required to pay it, and others are receiving exemptions when they are not entitled to them.

SB2 gives a long but non-exclusive list of “real estate instruments” to which the fee applies. This includes a “release” and a “mechanic’s lien,” but not just a “lien” nor a “tax lien,” and certainly not a “child support lien.” SB2 also uses the words “transaction,” “in connection with” and “relating to real property,” none of which are defined in statute. Is enforcing a government debt a “transaction”? Are IRS tax liens and releases “relating to real property”? Tax liens use specific real property to enforce a debt, but they are not like a mechanic’s lien where the contractor performed work on that specific property.

There are many other types of liens where intent could vary as to whether to charge the $75: liens for postponement of property taxes for senior citizens, government liens recorded in error, government liens released due to discretionary re-prioritizing, and, less sympathetically, liens for graffiti nuisance abatements or violations of various safety codes. It is unclear whether the legislature intended to extend the tax to these recordings, although they were aware that this was a potential issue and chose not to address it.

Clean-up legislation is needed promptly. SB2, as substantive legislation, was bad enough. Its implementation is almost worse.

Jon Coupal is the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Kammi Foote is the clerk-recorder of Inyo County.

Forty years after Proposition 13 was approved by California voters, the issue of property-tax limits could be back on the state ballot in 2018.

A coalition of liberal groups is trying to qualify an initiative for the November ballot that would remove Prop. 13’s restrictions on reassessments and tax increases for corporate-owned property.

The backers say the initiative would keep Prop. 13’s protections for homeowners, residential renters, small businesses and farmers.

They say a projected $11 billion in new revenue from corporate property taxes would be used to provide needed funding for schools and community colleges as well as parks, libraries, health clinics, home-building, homeless services, roads and bridges.

But those promises haven’t kept low-tax advocates from slamming the would-be initiative, called the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2018. …

Which is scarier showing up in your mailbox — Halloween movies from Netflix or your property tax bill? For homeowners, even “The Exorcist” can’t compare in terms of pure fright as the annual envelop from the tax collector’s office. Fortunately, however, homeowners are still able to count on Proposition 13 for protection.

While progressives in the California Legislature continue to target the struggling middle class for ever higher taxes, they have been unable to break Proposition 13. That landmark 1978 initiative limits increases in a property’s assessed value to 2 percent annually and provides most property owners a good idea what their tax bill will be even before opening the envelope.

This predictability in taxation allows homeowners to budget for their taxes and provides assurance against a sudden increase that could result in losing their home to the tax collector. Whether you purchased your property last week, or 30 years ago, Proposition 13 is maintaining a reasonable limit on annual hikes in your property tax.

Still, homeowners need to examine their property tax bill carefully because mistakes can happen. Taxpayers should understand the various charges and make certain that they are not being assessed for more than they are legally obligated to pay. The best way to check a tax bill is to have your previous year’s bill handy for reference.

For most California counties, the property tax bill will show three categories of charges. They are the General Tax Levy, Voted Indebtedness and Direct Assessments. …

Toward the end of September, California residents will be receiving their 2016-2017 property tax bills.

What they will also be receiving is an example of economic tyranny.

In the Golden State, the property tax on a $1 million home is likely to be several hundred dollars more in the 2016-2017 interval than in the previous interval (2015-2016). Government always wants more money for roads, schools and social programs.

The property tax is really a form of a wealth tax because the property tax is levied on an asset that is still in the owner’s possession. Another example of a wealth tax is a tax on one’s funds in a bank account.

There is no property tax on a person’s furniture, clothing or appliances. Nor is there a property tax on a person’s jewelry, computers or books.

There is no property tax on assets like stocks, bonds or businesses until the asset is sold (assuming the asset has appreciated in value).

And, worse, the tax on a new home in California can be much higher. For example, if someone purchased a home in 1975 for $50,000 and sold it in 2015 for $1 million, the new owner would pay a property tax based on the $1 million price.

During the 40 years (from 1975 to 2015), the home increased in value 20 times. However, the new owner — compared with the old owner — is not receiving 20 times as much in police, fire and school services that the old owner received.

If the owner of a home fails to pay his or her property tax, the home can be confiscated by government authorities or a tax lien can be placed on the property.

The time has come to eliminate the property tax. However, people will ask: How will the schools, the fire department, the police department and other local services be funded?

The answer is to use an income tax. Using an income tax has the advantage of an owner not being forced to leave his home for lack of a tax payment. A person with no income simply pays no tax — property tax or income tax.

Imagine, the horror an unemployed person will face is he cannot pay his property tax bill. He has a good chance of facing foreclosure and, ultimately, homelessness.

The horror can be extremely acute for an older person living on a fixed income, and perhaps all such income comes from Social Security. Why should such a person face the humiliation of homelessness?

The time to end property-tax tyranny has arrived. California residents must demand that that city and state officials repeal the property tax.

Richard Colman is a the president and found or Biomed Inc, a biotechnology, publishing, and informatics company. He lives in Orinda, California, a community of 18,000 people 15 miles east of San Francisco.

Many of those under 50 do not remember tax revolt leader Howard Jarvis, who passed away 30 years ago, and yet, perhaps unknowingly, they are benefiting from his legacy. Proposition 13, which limits property taxes and allows local voters to have the final say on new taxes, was Howard’s gift to all Californians.

By limiting annual increases, Proposition 13 makes property taxes predictable from year to year. This doesn’t just benefit senior citizen homeowners on fixed incomes who worry about losing their homes to the tax collector. It benefits all homeowners. For example, a family who bought their home just five years ago in 2011, at the typical price that year of $286,000, has already seen significant tax savings. Today, the median sales price is close to $509,000 according to the California Association of Realtors. That’s a 79 percent increase. Under the property tax system that preceded Proposition 13, which was based on current value, the family who bought their home in 2011, would see their property taxes nearly double in a few short years.

Without Proposition 13, that family who struggled to buy a home in the first place, would find themselves struggling to keep their house in an overheated real estate market. Because of Proposition 13, which limits annual assessed value increases to two percent and then applies a tax rate of one percent to the total, the family will pay $3,084 this year, not $5,090, which would be the case if there were no limit on annual increases.

But even this example understates the importance of Proposition 13 to the average property owner. You see, before Proposition 13 imposed a one percent tax rate, the statewide average was 2.6 percent — in some counties it was as high as four percent. So, without Proposition 13, our recent home buying family would actually be paying $13,234 in annual taxes.

The old system guaranteed constant increasing revenue to government but did not take into consideration property owners’ ability to pay. Even when home values declined, there was no relief for taxpayers because county boards of supervisors, city councils and local special districts could arbitrarily raise the tax rate to raise revenue.

Proposition 13 was designed to make property ownership secure for all Californians. But Howard Jarvis also wanted to make sure that the Legislature, which refused to provide tax relief when average folks were losing their homes, did not come back with new ways to punish taxpayers. The measure also requires a two-thirds vote of state lawmakers to increase state taxes and provides voters the final say on new local taxes.

Government employee unions, left wing progressives and even crony capitalists who all opposed Proposition 13 when it was on the ballot, are still complaining. They point to all the money that government has been denied because of Proposition 13 and claim that problems ranging from poverty to academic performance are due to the measure’s passage. Of course, these accusations fly in the face of facts. Even with Proposition 13, California ranks in the top 6 of all 50 states in per capital tax burden, and, according to the Department of Labor, we have the highest paid state and local employees. Add to this, after adjusting for inflation, we spend more money per pupil than prior to Proposition 13.

Those who do not remember the Tax Revolt of 1978, will be interested to know that much of the voter anger that fueled the passage of Proposition 13 was directed at insiders who benefited from the status quo. This frustration with members of the political class and their powerful special interest allies is very similar to what we are seeing in America, today.

After the passage of Proposition 13, Time Magazine featured Howard Jarvis shaking his fist on the cover of their June 19, 1978 issue. Howard went on to chronicle his 16-year effort to reform taxes in his book, I’m Mad as Hell. If he were with us today, he would be the foremost critic of government that is run for the benefit of insiders and ignores the concerns of average citizens, like those who lived in fear of losing their homes before Proposition 13.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

So much of what comes out of the Capitol hurts average Californians. Efforts to impose new taxes, onerous regulations or laws that dictate lifestyle choices like how much soda one drinks, have citizens ducking for cover. But every now and then, bills are introduced that cut against the stereotype by providing genuine benefit to average folks who don’t have the “juice” in Sacramento as do powerful, well-funded special interests.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto has introduced Assembly Bill 2586, legislation that would make parking, which has become a nightmare in many communities, a bit easier. Titled the “Parking Bill of Rights,” the common sense measure features a package of reforms that include requiring cities to promptly make spaces available to motorists after street-sweeping activities have concluded, prohibiting cities from ticketing motorists who park at broken meters, preventing valet-parking operators from excluding motorists from metered spots, and prohibiting cities from hiring private companies to act as parking “bounty hunters.”

“Occasionally the state needs to step in and remind our local governments that parking a vehicle should be an efficient practice, and not another big hassle designed to separate motorists from their money,” said Gatto. “These simple and practical policy changes will make life easier for Californians who just want to park their cars and go about their business.”

Another bill that will assist middle class families is Senate Bill 874. Authored by Senator Ted Gaines, it would simply increase the dependent child tax credit by 25 percent to $422. That might not seem like a lot of money to big union interests or corporations, but California has one of the highest costs of living in America. For a struggling family, a few hundred bucks buys groceries and shoes for the kids.

Two more bills are sure to be warmly received by older homeowners, a major constituency of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Senate bill 1126 by Senator Jeff Stone would eliminate the 2 percent inflation allowance for seniors of modest incomes. While the two percent rate cap provides great tax relief for most homeowners, even that modest amount is too high for some seniors who are barely able to hold on to their homes.

The other “senior friendly” bill is Assembly Bill 2691, the Monthly Property Tax Payment Program, by Assemblyman Chris Holden. This measure would permit a County Board of Supervisors to approve an ordinance allowing taxpayers over the age of 62 or a person receiving SSI income for a disability, regardless of age, to pay their property taxes monthly instead of twice a year. While not cutting their tax liability, this would help older folks and the disabled to budget for their property taxes.

We won’t know the ultimate fate of these four legislative proposals for a few months. But the mere fact that they are introduced at least allows a discussion to start about how the California Legislature can help the middle class and retired homeowners instead of looking out for powerful special interests who are the reliable sources of campaign contributions.

Jon Coupal is president of the HowardJarvisTaxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.